LexGHURELAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 6 S.C R. 1062 GHURELAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (Criminal Appeal No. 1636 of 2005) JUNE 17, 2011 [DR. 8.5. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c ss. 395, 396 and 397 - Dacoity with two murders - Conviction of six accused-appellants affirmed by High Court - HELD: There are concurrent findings of fact of courts below about involvement and participation of all accused-appellants in the crime - They had been properly identified in test 0 identification parades as well as in court by witnesses - The looted property recovered also correctly identified - Recovery of looted property as also weapons and vehicle used in offence on disclosure statement made by accused, also stood proved - There is no cogent reason Iv take a view contrary E to that taken by courts below. The six accused-appellants along with three others were prosecuted for committing offences punishable ul ss 395, 396, 397 and 398 IPC. An FIR was lodged by PW- 13 on the morning of 17.12.1996 stating that in the F previous night, 8-10 miscreants committed dacoity in his house, shot dead his chowkidar and one of the neighbours and decamped with cash, jewellery and silver wares etc. Nine accused were arrested. On the disclosure statements made by the accused, two 12-bore guns, one 3 revolver, and one katta, some empty cartridges, some live cartridges, one ambassador car, and the looted jewellery, cash and silver wares etc. were recovered. One of the accused died pending trial. The trial court convicted all the remaining 8 accused ulss 395, 396 and 397 IPC and H 1062 GHURELAL AND ORS. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 1063 sentenced them to imprisonment for life. Five of the A accused were also convicted u/ss 3/25 and 3/27, Arms Act. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused u/ss 395, 396 and 397 IPC and acquitted two. Aggrieved, the six convicts filed the appeal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There are concurrent findings of fact so far as the involvement and participation of all the six accused-appellants is concerned. They had been C properly identified in the test identification parades as well as in the court by the witnesses. More so, the looted property, particularly, ornaments, jewellery, silver glasses have been recovered and identified correctly. In respect of this, the findings recorded by the trial court as well as D by the High Court are based on the evidence of 'PW.26', the Judicial Magistrate, who conducted the Test Identification Parades and by the statements of 'PW.20', the Tahsildar, who conducted the proceedings of identification of stolen articles. According to 'PW.20', 'PW.12' and 'PW.13' accurately identified the stolen articles. Similarly, 'PW.26', the Judicial Magistrate, has deposed that on 23.12.96, he had conducted the identification parade of accused 'RV', 'K' and 'G'; and 'PW.13', 'PW.12' and PW-2 identified the three accused correctly. He further deposed that on 6.1.1997, he conducted the identification parade of accused 'SS', 'BS' and 'R' wherein PW.13 identified accused 'SS' and 'BS' correctly, but in place of accused 'R', he identified another accused. PW.12 identified accused 'SS', 'BS' and G 'R' accurately. PW.26 also prepared memos Ext.P-3 and Ext.P-4 of the identification parades. These two.witnesses have been cross-examined. However,. nothing could be elicited by the defence to discredit their testimonies. [para E F 7] [1069-B-H; 1070-A-B] H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 6 S.C.R. A 1.2. The post-mortem report of the two deceased stood proved by the doctor (PW.21) who had conducted the autopsies. He deposed that the victims had died of the gun shot injuries. He also deposed that he had examined 'PW.2' on 17.12.1996 and had found 7 simple s injuries on his body which had been caused by a blunt weapon. The said injury had been caused within 12 hours of examination. Thus, he corroborated the injuries as well as the manner and the weapon with which such injuries were caused. [para 9) (1070-E-F] c 2.1. So far as the recovery is concerned, it stood proved by the Investigating Officer (PW-34), who stated that on the disclosure statements made by the accused u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and at their instances, he had recovered the stolen articles, alleged gun, revolver, pellet, D scooter and an ambassador car used by the appellants at the time of committing dacoity.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.